Amjad said he wasn't up for an Obama administration job, but he seems to me like the kind of person we need representing us in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Very impressed with Amjad, not least his civility.

A lucid performance by Amjad, and a classy closing by Frum. Excellent discussion. I wish Amjad were up for a high stakes job in the Obama administration.

I'm halfway through this diavlog, and the only question I have is this: Is it possible for David to let Amjad utter a complete sentence without interrupting? So far, the answer is no. I'll tell you this, David, as someone who tries to stay neutral on this issue: You do your side no good. Your kneejerk reaction to every minor choice of words is not helpful. You are not negotiating the final draft of a legal contract here. Nor is it helpful to insist that everything your side does is completely different from the other side, especially when it puts you in the position of having to re-redefine the words you just interrupted to quibble over. Your manner suggests someone who has absolutely no interest in peace. I hope you stay deep on the sidelines for the foreseeable future as far as this issue goes.

It's always good to see David Frum on BH. He's always interesting. Aside from Pinkerton the New America Foundation is all winners. I'll have to check this one out ...

I'm less than 8 minutes in and David Frum is acting like an interrogator. Atallah is handling him with class, but in the interest of balance and fairness, let's have one more dialog between Frum and a Palestinian partisan who is a rude, anti-Semitic prick.

Quoting brucds: I'm less than 8 minutes in and David Frum is acting like an interrogator. Atallah is handling him with class, but in the interest of balance and fairness, let's have one more dialog between Frum and a Palestinian partisan who is a rude, anti-Semitic prick.

I think Frum redeems himself somewhat before it closes. He certainly ends with a note of respect.

At last a dialogue about Israel/Gaza and the Palestinians that went beyond the ritual accusations and lamentations that we have heard so often in the past weeks. Amjad Atallah was, I thought, most impressive. Despite the relentless but polite questioning of David Frum (who was also at his best as gadfly and sceptic), he was able to present strong arguments for the necessity of international involvement and mediation to bring to an end the war of all against all. Will the Obama administration have the courage and the intelligence to push Israel and the Palestinians towards peace? Or will they fall back into the rut of inaction that so many American administrations have mistaken for statemanship?

Quoting bjkeefe: ... not helpful.

Another tactic you use, David, that is equally unhelpful, is one that I remember you also using against Daniel Levy: You demand a complete solution from the person to whom you are speaking. It's clear that even if the other has a chance to express a complete thought, something still not at all in evidence, your aim is to find one aspect you can pick at, and declare that therefore, the entire set if ideas is completely not worth entertaining. It's thanks to attitudes and behavior like yours that no progress is ever made.

Actually David, you did a great job adding facts, asking for clarification and pointing out falsehood when it was absolutely warranted. Don't listen to the haters. Mr Atallah's disingenuous tap-dance around the semantics of 'terrorist organization' was revealing, especially his deeming it 'not relevant' as soon as he sees that he can't escape his own lunacy. An enabler for terror is the last thing the Obama administration needs and one hopes clear heads can help him see that. The absolute most-telling moment comes at 22:35 when Mr Atallah says that Gaza should be 'de-militarized' (if only!) and David says OK how? The look of complete cluelessness speaks volumes. His escape by saying everything would be Ok now if only Rabin had not been assassinated is a complete cop-out. He can't really believe one man is the difference in the state of Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Quoting harkin: Actually David, you did a great job adding facts, asking for clarification and pointing out falsehood when it was absolutely warranted. Don't listen to the haters.

Mr Atallah's disingenuous tap-dance around the semantics of 'terrorist organization' was revealing, especially his deeming it 'not relevant' as soon as he sees that he can't escape his own lunacy. An enabler for terror is the last thing the Obama administration needs and one hopes clear heads can help him see that.

It's a funny thing, harkin. I didn't like Atallah's avoidance of the "terrorist" label. I think it fits Hamas perfectly. It still seemed to me like a deeply thoughtful display and I think he has as good a grasp of the issues as anybody I've heard speak on the topic, despite disagreeing with him on some of the specifics. It's also funny how the guy who describes points of view he disagrees with as "lunacy" can find a way to describe folks who don't agree with him as "haters."

Quoting bjkeefe: Another tactic you use, David, that is equally unhelpful, is one that I remember you also using against Daniel Levy: You demand a complete solution from the person to whom you were speaking. It's clear that even if the other has a chance to express a complete thought, something still not at all in evidence, your aim is to find one aspect you can pick at, and declare that therefore, the entire set if ideas is completely not worth entertaining.

It's thanks to attitudes and behavior like yours that no progress is ever made.

Is Frum even on the record as being for a Palestinian state? A lot of these wingers are holding out for another one of these.

Quoting harkin: [...]

It's clear why you're a Frum fan, harkin. Both of you care only about winning everything for your side. You'd rather leap on one moment and declare complete victory than put any effort into trying to hear any good points coming from the other side. I'll tell you this much: your blind rah-rahism does nothing but build sympathy for the side you don't like.

Great diavlog. But all of this hypothesizing over what multinational organization is going to take responsibility for managing Palestine seems moot. I have to point out that the USA is broke and the EU isn't much better off. In fact the S&P just downgraded Greece and it looks like Spain and Ireland could follow soon. Greek, Spanish and Irish bonds are trading at record spreads to the Euro benchmark, which is important because it means there is a chance that the Euro may cease to exist as a common currency. What that means for the EU is unclear, but it's definitely not good. The USA does not need to spend any more money to renew it's status as hegemon or curry world favor. Moreover, we can't afford it and if we were smart we would eschew it. We don't have any more fingers left to stick in any more dykes.

Facts are stupid things. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/171...4:50&out=16:08

Quoting Salt: The USA does not need to spend any more money to renew it's status as hegemon or curry world favor. Moreover, we can't afford it and if we were smart we would eschew it. We don't have any more fingers left to stick in any more dykes.

Yet the US continues to "aid" Israel to the tune of something like 3 billion dollars each year in direct military and economic assistance. Indeed since 1976 Israel has been the largest cumulative beneficiary of American foreign aid since World War II. So perhaps it is time to stop sticking fingers in the dykes....

[quote=Francoamerican;101266]Indeed since 1976 Israel has been the largest cumulative beneficiary of American foreign aid since World War II.
QUOTE] The US has spent more on Iraq in the last year than the last 40 years on Israel.

Quoting Francoamerican: So perhaps it is time to stop sticking fingers in the dykes.... I like people who agree with me. By the way, re Israel. They can take care of themselves and are obliged to do so. The USA can no longer perform this role of global cop, global firewall and global insurance underwriter. We don't have a AAA balance sheet anymore. If you want an analogy, there are more than enough around: AIG, Fannie, Freddie, the Fed.

David Frum makes a number of interesting points: 1) Since Israel is a state, it can't commit terrorism. this is a nice device if you only use the word "terrorism" as a propaganda and rhetorical device. It, of course, completely eviscerates any moral dimension to the word. 2) I'm pretty sure David is against "moral relativism", yet he is perfectly happy to describe killing hundreds of women and children (when done by his friends in Israel) as an "incentive".
David does redeem himself at the end of the dialog by starting to treat Atallah with the basic courtesy anyone would hope for in a conversation. Atallah: YOU ROCK!!!! thank you so much for your participation here. you were eloquent and patient beyond measure. good work.

Amjad Atallah is a welcome new voice on the scene. Frum needs to loosen up.

Quoting claymisher: Is Frum even on the record as being for a Palestinian state? A lot of these wingers are holding out for another one of these.

I don't know, but he sure did not sound in this diavlog as though he was open to anything realistic in the way of Palestinian statehood.

Quoting AemJeff: I think Frum redeems himself somewhat before it closes. He certainly ends with a note of respect.

Yes, but did that make up for the first 95% of the diavlog?

Quoting popcorn_karate: David Frum makes a number of interesting points:

1) Since Israel is a state, it can't commit terrorism. this is a nice device if you only use the word "terrorism" as a propaganda and rhetorical device. It, of course, completely eviscerates any moral dimension to the word.

2) I'm pretty sure David is against "moral relativism", yet he is perfectly happy to describe killing hundreds of women and children (when done by his friends in Israel) as an "incentive".

David does redeem himself at the end of the dialog by starting to treat Atallah with the basic courtesy anyone would hope for in a conversation.

Atallah: YOU ROCK!!!! thank you so much for your participation here. you were eloquent and patient beyond measure. good work.

Just on point 1) - words mean what they mean. "Terrorism" as a term has always been applied to things done by non-state actors. It's in a different category from brutality committed by a state, because, I think, there's a completely different strategic requirement for trying to deal with it. The term has been been tortured by the Bush administration, and abused as a means of trying to achieve carte blanche on actions in support of

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, but did that make up for the first 95% of the diavlog?

I wasn't quite as put off by it as you were. I thought Atallah was hedging a bit too much at times, and I was fine with Frum trying to get him to commit to a consistent view. I thought Atallah handled the pressure very well, and he certainly had ample opportunity to make any points he wanted to make.

[quote=gwlaw99;101269The US has spent more on Iraq in the last year than the last 40 years on Israel.[/QUOTE] True. I was referring to foreign AID. The money the US has spent to destroy Iraq, you would agree perhaps, falls under a different category?

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, but did that make up for the first 95% of the diavlog?

Poor Mr Frum: Ever since he wrote a book called, I seem to remember, The End of Evil, he has been fighting a losing battle. Evil just keeps popping up everywhere.

Quoting AemJeff: I wasn't quite as put off by it as you were. I thought Atallah was hedging a bit too much at times, and I was fine with Frum trying to get him to commit to a consistent view. I thought Atallah handled the pressure very well, and he certainly had ample opportunity to make any points he wanted to make.

What sounded to you like hedging usually sounded to me like someone trying to give an answer that was more than a sound bite or slogan, with Frum interrupting before Atallah could even get halfway through. I felt, many times, that Atallah had the furthest thing from ample opportunity; instead, Frum repeatedly side-tracked him and took him off on tangents with his interruptions. I grant that Frum had some good questions. It's also possible that he has talked about this so much that he felt he could anticipate a lot of what was about to be said. Still, I found his manner rude.

Quoting bjkeefe: It's also possible that he has talked about this so much that he felt he could anticipate a lot of what was about to be said. Still, I found his manner rude.

Frum is usually quite civil. He's nothing like your typical loud mouthed conservative. He also went to Harvard Law and lawyers are in general more argumentative while simultaneously thick skinned. That's just how lawyers talk. The "rudeness" you perceived was just Frum's way of getting to know a guy. In the end, Frum came out with admiration. Therefore, it required the first 95% to get to the last 5%. I remember the talks with Daniel Levy and how Frum kept asking him to slow down and not to gloss over points. Frum is a methodical, logical guy. I think it's far better to ask someone to back up any points that they make. I think you might be projecting some of your distaste onto him rather than he being distasteful. Or maybe it's just a matter of how you like your arguments structured.

Quoting AemJeff: I think Frum redeems himself somewhat before it closes. He certainly ends with a note of respect.

"I'm sure you're going to be a regular superstar here." This doesn't strike anyone else as a kind of sarcastic jab at bhtv's anti-Semitic Israel-hating audience?

Quoting Magic Flea: "I'm sure you're going to be a regular superstar here."

This doesn't strike anyone else as a kind of sarcastic jab at bhtv's anti-Semitic Israel-hating audience?

The only way to get there is if you're willing to grant that Atallah might sound like an anti-Semite. I don't think so. There are other ways to read it.

Quoting sugarkang: I think you might be projecting some of your distaste onto him rather than he being distasteful. Or maybe it's just a matter of how you like your arguments structured.

Probably a little of both are true here, compounded by my distaste for his one-sided view of the topic at hand. Still, I maintain that Frum was not so much trying to exchange ideas here, or trying to learn about what someone else had to say, so much as he was trying to win a skirmish on points using tactics of distraction. Or so it came across. If this is how he wants to conduct conversations on his own time, fine. But some consideration for his audience is also in order. What he did was make it harder for me to understand what Atallah wanted to say.

Quoting Magic Flea: "I'm sure you're going to be a regular superstar here."

This doesn't strike anyone else as a kind of sarcastic jab at bhtv's anti-Semitic Israel-hating audience?

Much as I dislike Frum's views and personality, I did not hear that as anything other than a jokey way of saying something sincere.

Quoting bjkeefe: Probably a little of both are true here, compounded by my distaste for his one-sided view of the topic at hand.

Still, I maintain that Frum was not so much trying to exchange ideas here, or trying to learn about what someone else had to say, so much as he was trying to win a skirmish on points using tactics of distraction. Or so it came across. If this is how he wants to conduct conversations on his own time, fine. But some consideration for his audience is also in order. What he did was make it harder for me to understand what Atallah wanted to say.

Here's a good example of what's wrong with Frum's childishness. When he gets in a corner he lashes out: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/171...6:09&out=16:30 Really? Syria does it too? (Moral equivalence is good! Moral equivalence is bad!) Keefe is right. David Frum is not helping his side if he wants us to think Israel is just like Syria.

First off, ditto on what bjkeefe said on Frum's tendency to interrupt.
But what really struck me was at the beginning of this diavlog, where Frum said- and then proceeded to try to argue this point (!!)- that the West Bank and Gaza were not occupied territory. This struck me as... revealing. Even the US government concedes that these are occupied territories. For that matter, as the Israeli Supreme Court has expressed in more than one decision, the Geneva Conventions regarding occupation are fully applicable in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israeli military controls the air space, the borders, Gaza's coast, in addition to having all the other authority that Ataallah said they had.
The reason I found this striking is that Frum didn't seem to recognize that what he was trying to argue is flat out preposterous. Usually when otherwise superficially rational people hold crazy beliefs (the international Gypsy conspiracy was responsible for New Coke, 5% of the US Senate is made up of shape-shifting human-alien lizard hybrids) they have the good sense to understand that their beliefs are in fact crazy or extreme. Judging from his casual insistence of the obvious

I agree with your posts completely Brendan. And fyi, I'm not neutral on the subject of Israel. As people who have experienced unspeakable horror only to rise and make invaluable contributions to the arts, sciences, and social justice, I have long admired the Jewish people for their intellect and capacity to do good in the world. No other group have been through what they have been through in the modern world and yet wield so much power and capability to be a force for the good. I felt that they were in a unique place to educate the rest of us on the importance of hope, peace, human dignity and compassion. Every time I'd see a Holocaust segment (and they are constantly all over the place) I'd be moved all over again, no matter that I'd seen and read the same dozens of times before. No more. The last few years have compelled me to really look at the situation in the middle east as something more than just a passing news story, and for anyone that looks at it objectively (and I started very, very pro Israel) there is no escaping

it is interesting Frum focus on Hamas terrorism yet forget to mention the biggest and most professional terrorist organization in the world, Israel. It does not use suicide bombing, but uses tanks, jets, cluster bombs, kills schools children in hospitals and UN compounds. Frum definition of terrorism and classification is non-starter non sense. How does Frum define Israel's war crime in Gaza? Our Middle East policy failed because Zionists Jews have been in charge of our policy since Kissinger. Frum acted like a prosecutor,not a dialogue. Intifada is not a war. Israeli Occupation is a crime and is a war on the Palestinians. Is this Frum the one who also took us to war on Iraq? Why Amjad did not mention the Irgun, the Haganah as the first terrorist organizations in the Middle East and failed to mention Israel's long history of terrorism. Amajd was a class act.

Quoting Sami Jadallah: it is interesting Frum focus on Hamas terrorism yet forget to mention the biggest and most professional terrorist organization in the world, Israel. It does not use suicide bombing, but uses tanks, jets, cluster bombs, kills schools children in hospitals and UN compounds. Frum definition of terrorism and classification is non-starter non sense. How does Frum define Israel's war crime in Gaza? Our Middle East policy failed because Zionists Jews have been in charge of our policy since Kissinger. Frum acted like a prosecutor,not a dialogue. Intifada is not a war. Israeli Occupation is a crime and is a war on the Palestinians. Is this Frum the one who also took us to war on Iraq? Why Amjad did not mention the Irgun, the Haganah as the first terrorist organizations in the Middle East and failed to mention Israel's long history of terrorism. Amajd was a class act.

Why is it that dead Jewish children are never mentioned in rants like this?

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I agree with your posts completely Brendan. And fyi, I'm not neutral on the subject of Israel. As people who have experienced unspeakable horror only to rise and make invaluable contributions to the arts, sciences, and social justice, I have long admired the Jewish people for their intellect and capacity to do good in the world. No other group have been through what they have been through in the modern world and yet wield so much power and capability to be a force for the good. I felt that they were in a unique place to educate the rest of us on the importance of hope, peace, human dignity and compassion.

Just for the record ... I agree with all of that, wholeheartedly. When I said that I tried to remain neutral, I meant it in the sense of looking at Israel as a state dealing with the Palestinians.

why does everyone on the left assume that the Israeli's really actually want peace or a two state solution? i got news for you: that's what you want. if i were an israeli i honestly wouldn't give a shit about peace because they can't afford to. it's not really in Israel's interest to allow palestine to establish itself in any way as long as it's controlled by maniacs.

An enlightening but ultimately frustrating dialogue because of a largely unaddressed split in assumptions: For Frum, Israeli security must be considered more important than the freedom and well-being of any Palestinian state. If the existence of the two nations is incompatible, then the present state of affairs, one that is disadvantageous to the Palestinians, must be maintained. For Atallah, Israeli and Palestinian national security are coequal in value, and that to have one state secure at the expense of the other is unacceptable.
For whatever reason, the Frumian assumption remained latent here and uninterrogated . To reduce my frustration, I would need to see the backside of his argument. Does Israel’s priority rest on factors that are at bottom historical and sympathetic(a la Lemon Sorbet above, “The suffering of …”), cultural-aesthetic (Lemon again: “long admired the contributions…”), ethical (Israel as a perfect model of a species of government), political (critical for the US…) or simply ethnic (as Jews we need to support..). What is needed then is a second episode in which Atallah, playing Frum, questions Frum playing Atallah.

Thank you for a great diavlog, Mr Atallah and Mr Frum. Genuine listening makes all the difference, and although both displayed this quality, Mr Atallah seemed to excel at this. I read an an article today in the Christian Science Monitor about the situation in Gaza --- it was an interview with a correspondent named Lina (something) stationed close to Rafah, Gaza. (In Egypt, as reporters are not allowed in Gaza). Very powerful article. Sharp intake of breath powerful. J.dots. (formerly You Had Me at Hello).

I might be wrong, and certainly Frum interrupts several times, particularly at the beginning of the diavlog, but I think the synchronization is also a little bit off, so it looks like Frum is stepping on the end of more of Amjad's sentences than he actually is.

The Clinton administration was inactive towards the Arab-Israeli question? I don't think so.

The U.S. didn't destroy Iraq, but it did destroy Saddam Hussein's despotic Baathist regime. And from that destruction came a democratic state. The only one in the entire Middle East in fact, not including the Palestinian Authority.

To add to what you wrote. Terrorism is also misconstrued by groups like Hamas, as well. That's in fact the reason why there isn't an international legal definition for terrorism, because the West uses it one way and the Middle East another. There are of course definitions out there used by legal scholars and government officials, but none is recognized under international law as 'the' legal definition.

Jeez, people. These are two thinkers who disagree on an AXIOMATIC level on a lot of big issues. Any time one tries to build an argument on top of points that have not yet been established as common truth between them, interruptions are NECESSARY for meaningful discussion to even happen. I enjoyed every minute of this discussion deeply, and I think both guys made some very good points.

I just couldn't watch this any further after Frum quibbled over "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations". I'll try later. But, for the future, Atallah v Kagan?

This preening infant was at the nerve center of our earliest efforts to confront the post-9/11 world. Chew that one over, bloggingheads viewers.

Quoting Mensch: I might be wrong, and certainly Frum interrupts several times, particularly at the beginning of the diavlog, but I think the synchronization is also a little bit off, so it looks like Frum is stepping on the end of more of Amjad's sentences than he actually is.

Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? This is the lamest excuse-making for this inveterate, recidivist boor I have heard here (or anywhere) yet.

Quoting Lyle: The Clinton administration was inactive towards the Arab-Israeli question? I don't think so.

Yes, it was actively pro-Israel and did little to contribute to a solution.

Quoting judex: Does Israel’s priority rest on factors that are at bottom historical and sympathetic (a la Lemon Sorbet above, “The suffering of …”), cultural-aesthetic (Lemon again: “long admired the contributions…”), ethical (Israel as a perfect model of a species of government), political (critical for the US…) or simply ethnic (as Jews we need to support..). What is needed then is a second episode in which Atallah, playing Frum, questions Frum playing Atallah.

I think you are right to say that there are always at work in arguments about Israel, and its historical relations with the Palestinians, certain background assumptions that deflect attention from the only question that should matter: What is just? What is fair? What is right? Is "priority" a moral or political category? I'm not sure what it means, and you seem to be unsure yourself: does a people that has suffered more than others, that has distinguished itself culturally, that has built a vibrant democracy in the Middle East (where the idea seems largely unknown), and that is linked to a culturally diverse diaspora, have the right to treat a less happily endowed people as if it were nothing? A reversal of roles between Frum

Quoting AemJeff: Just on point 1) - words mean what they mean. "Terrorism" as a term has always been applied to things done by non-state actors. It's in a different category from brutality committed by a state, because, I think, there's a completely different strategic requirement for trying to deal with it. The term has been been tortured by the Bush administration, and abused as a means of trying to achieve carte blanche on actions in support of any number of policy goals - a stupid strategy that has diluted the term's usefulness. States commit war crimes, loosely affiliated bad guys commit terrorism. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with acting as if terrorism is a greater evil than committing war crimes against civilians.

you are right, words have meanings. try this on for size: terrorism:
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. yep. that there is the definition of terrrorism. Frum wants to change the definition into a newspeak legalism where the word can never be used about

Quoting popcorn_karate: you are right, words have meanings. try this on for size:

terrorism:
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

yep. that there is the definition of terrrorism. Frum wants to change the definition into a newspeak legalism where the word can never be used about him and his friends when they clearly engage in the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the word.

Quite so. Here's another usage:

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The word was invented (actually "terrorisme") to describe Jacobin acts of violence and murder after the French Revolution. ("The Terror.") But modern usage came about in reference to Jewish acts of terror against the British in the 1940's. And that's the sense in which it's been used in a political context recently. It describes something specific. No word has a meaning written in stone. Every

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree with all of that, wholeheartedly.

You agree, wholeheartedly, that Jews are "in a unique place to educate the rest of us on the importance of hope, peace, human dignity and compassion?"

Quoting TwinSwords: You agree, wholeheartedly, that Jews are "in a unique place to educate the rest of us on the importance of hope, peace, human dignity and compassion?"

Yes. Although now that you ask, I suppose I might choose a less absolute word than unique. That is, there are other groups who can offer a lot along these lines from their own perspectives. But I do think of the Jews as pretty distinctive.

so your distinction is that a government is not an example of an "organized group"? I'd say a government is an organized group of people. better organized than most, actually. And perfectly suited to perpetrating a terror campaign. again, you want to use a narrowly tailored definition because it fits your purposes. I prefer the common understanding of the word, particularly because it is an extremely loaded term and using your legalistic definition tends to skew debate. Some words used as jargon in a particular field have definitions that are not the usual understanding of the word outside of that discipline. you want to use "terrorism" as political science jargon. I could accept that if this was a political science seminar. since this is a general discussion board - I will use the common definition that the dictionary provides.

Quoting popcorn_karate: so your distinction is that a government is not an example of an "organized group"? I'd say a government is an organized group of people. better organized than most, actually. And perfectly suited to perpetrating a terror campaign.

again, you want to use a narrowly tailored definition because it fits your purposes. I prefer the common understanding of the word, particularly because it is an extremely loaded term and using your legalistic definition tends to skew debate.

Some words used as jargon in a particular field have definitions that are not the usual understanding of the word outside of that discipline. you want to use "terrorism" as political science jargon. I could accept that if this was a political science seminar. since this is a general discussion board - I will use the common definition that the dictionary provides.

No I'm arguing that there's more than one dictionary definition. I'm also arguing that the usage that I'm promoting is supported by the word's etymology. Sourced here. (That links to the right page, you'll need to scroll down to correct entry - which I'll quote below.)

terrorism 1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the

and as you stated earlier - language is fluid, meanings change. I listed the top three definitions for terrorism in a very common dictionary. none of those definitions mentions any distinction about whether the perpetrator is a "state" or not. I suspect we will continue to disagree on this subject. but I do thank you for the etymology, which does make your position more understandable for me. -z

Quoting popcorn_karate: and as you stated earlier - language is fluid, meanings change.

I listed the top three definitions for terrorism in a very common dictionary. none of those definitions mentions any distinction about whether the perpetrator is a "state" or not.

I suspect we will continue to disagree on this subject. but I do thank you for the etymology, which does make your position more understandable for me.

-z

Fair enough.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes. Although now that you ask, I suppose I might choose a less absolute word than unique. That is, there are other groups who can offer a lot along these lines from their own perspectives. But I do think of the Jews as pretty distinctive.

Do you also agree, wholeheartedly, that Jews have some kind of exceptional "intellect and capacity to do good in the world?"

Quoting TwinSwords: Do you also agree, wholeheartedly, that Jews have some kind of exceptional "intellect and capacity to do good in the world?"

That's not what Lemon said.

I don’t think Lemon was making an argument. His tendency to support Israel in the past was influenced both by a deep sympathy for a their history of suffering as well as admiration for individual Jews who contributed to science, humanities, etc. He was willing to give Israeli tactics the benefit of the doubt, a kind of geopolitical affirmative action.
It’s overkill. Obviously, you don’t need such an argument to support Israeli security concerns, but a Frum might need something like it to support as a principle Israel’s security concerns over all others peoples and states. But to do that, an argument has to made a. that a people or culture is exceptional and b. that because it is exceptional, it has little or no restrictions on how it shapes the world the way it wants it to be shaped. If such an argument were possible (though I don’t think it is far from what a lot of liberal Democrats think), it wouldn’t lend itself to any limitation: What if, for example, Israel ‘s desired degree security required the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians -forced migration, imprisonment and even outright slaughter of

Excellent discussion. Amjad is very impressive, and what he's advocating is as good a blueprint and philosophy for how to move forward as I've heard. Obama's smart and wise enough to know that this is the approach that he should take, and that would be good for our interests and a just course of action--my doubt is whether he'll be gutsy enough and willing to ruffle feathers to do what we should do. So if he doesn't do it it'll be a bigger moral failing on his part than it would be for someone without his judgment and moral sense, because it'll be all down to courage, there won't be another excuse which isn't as due to his own free choice.

Quoting judex: I don’t think Lemon was making an argument. His tendency to support Israel in the past was influenced both by a deep sympathy for a their history of suffering as well as admiration for individual Jews who contributed to science, humanities, etc. He was willing to give Israeli tactics the benefit of the doubt, a kind of geopolitical affirmative action.

You've accurately portrayed my feelings there judex. But there was no benefit of the doubt to be given because I honestly had such little knowledge of the middle east that I assumed for most of my life that Palestinians were evil. I am not of the political world and my interest in politics is fairly new. Most of my friends and I had virtually no interest in the subject and most still don't. Anyway, I had never known a Palestinian, but since many of my friends, boyfriends, doctors, teachers, etc. were Jews, and the extent to which the media would cover the middle east was all about how the evil Palestinians were killing the Israelis, my general perception of the issue was vague (in the sense that I really didn't know what it was all about) but

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: I sincerely thought them in a unique position to teach and guide the world through humanity, fairness and compassion. Wow, reading my own words I cannot believe how pollyanna that is. But yes, I did believe that. Anyway, like anyone who has looked up to someone or thought them special only to find a deep and irreconcilable flaw, I am very, very dissapointed and saddened by what I believe is an inhumane attitude towards the Palestinians. Thus why I have so much to say.

Israel can't ignore int'l opinion, statesmen say Daniel Edelson
Ynet News, Jan. 11, 2009 When almost every nation –from the Czech Republic and Turkey to France – asks to become involved in Israeli and regional affairs, it begs the question: Why is the world so curious about Israel? The phrase "international opinion" is bounced around among decision-makers and the public alike, but does it mean we're really on the map or merely slaves to the idea of being 'a light among nations'? Is the average citizen in Norway or Canada really interested in events in Gaza or Sderot? "It perhaps doesn't interest the individual citizen, but it definitely interests the elites in these nations, the urban intellectuals: the press, authors, academics," Professor Shlomo Ben-Ami, a

I am home with an injury and and thus am able to respond right away mvantony. I know you're thrilled! First, I acknowledge the truth of what was said in the article about trying to assuage some of the guilt. In my opinion that is plausible for some of the world's reaction. Let me add a few others though: Israelis are largely western, caucasian people, if not totally by ethnicity than by culture. Much of the violence that happens in today's world are both perpetrated by, and towards, groups of poor, uneducated populace of color, and thus does not get much notice. I myself am Asian but this is the way of the world right now. If a massacre were to happen in Burma (I think it did in fact happen on a small scale recently?), I would be horrified, but I would not have the combination of horror AND fascination that would most certainly be the case if it was perpetrated by the Icelandic. You could apply this to the Holocaust. If the exact same thing happened on the same scale but was perpetrated say, by the Bangladesh to the Yemeni, it's doubtful that the tragedy would register

Quoting judex: What if, for example, Israel ‘s desired degree security required the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians -forced migration, imprisonment and even outright slaughter of a large segment of it population? Or if it required the confiscation of lands, the tearing apart of communities and families, massive and humiliating surveillance, -in short, a chronic degradation that is life on the West Bank and Gaza? I mean, is there a point at which someone who accepts the idea that Israel is exceptional and has special privileges can say, “This is too much?” I don’t see how in principle.

I assume you were answering my previous post, so let me try to answer. First of all: forced migration, imprisonment, confiscation of lands, humiliating surveillance and outright slaughter aren't hypothetical practices. Israel has had recourse, ever since the state of Israel was founded (and before it was founded), to all these practices at one time or another in order to deal with the "Palestinian problem," the problem namely that "the land without a people for a people without a land" was in fact inhabited by a "people" before 1948. Most Americans will say that (some of) these practices are justified by the threats posed

Religion holds the minds and even souls of many of its followers as much as political ideology does.
In America we are witnessing the perversion of the Christian faith by political oppurtunists and entrenched racist elements through the conservative memebers of the Republican party and of assorted fundamentalist Christian organizations. The hold that Republican partisanship and American Christianity has on its membership is a heels dug in mentality that is resolved in its aloof and lofty aims. It is formidable and short of aging and dying off, it's here to stay for some generations. Regrettably the spiritual irony is that these followers may indeed have lost their souls as well, because of these not so God like elements.
Peace is ellusive in the middle east because both sides of the argument demonstrate similar roots of generational and partisan entrenchment; that have centuries of formenting.
True peace will only come when a succession of generations on both sides grow up free of the heritage, cultural, and religous bias instilled naturally presently. A not so natural effort, on both sides; must be implemented on multiple generations that

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: [...]

Lemon, I hope you're recovering well from your injury. I'm not going to respond much to your post right now other than to agree that Ben-Ami's "guilt theory" is obviously simplistic, and to the extent it applies at all, it probably does best to Europe and other countries that were settled by Europeans (i.e., after and while the indigenous populations were being slaughtered -- not displaced, notice -- to make the theft "clean and trouble-free"). Ben-Ami's theory applies much less well to the strong anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The one other thing I'd like to mention for now is that the holocaust is but one instance of the mistreatment of Jews -- albeit the most awesome and evil instance by orders of magnitude -- in a very long history of mistreatment, a history that must be considered in its entirety, I believe, to properly understand the "international community's" wildly disproportionate and, frankly, sick fascination with Jews and Israel (and hence with the Palestinians too), and the uniquely demanding "moral" standards that are applied to Israel alone.

Quoting mvantony: The one other thing I'd like to mention for now is that the holocaust is but one instance of the mistreatment of Jews -- albeit the most awesome and evil instance by orders of magnitude -- in a history that must be considered in its entirety, I believe, to properly understand the "international community's" wildly disproportionate and, frankly, sick fascination with Jews and Israel (and hence with the Palestinians too), and the uniquely demanding "moral" standards that are applied to Israel alone.

It is your fascination with victimhood that is sick. The contemporay world bears no responsibility for what happened to the Jewish people in past centuries. Nor do the Palestinians. But the state of Israel does bear responsibility for its actions and inactions today. Disproportionate fascination with the Jews and Palestinians? I would say, on the contrary, that you have gotten off pretty lightly. The United Nations issues resolution after resolution against successive Israeli governments, international lawyers declare Israel in violation of international law, American administrations turn a blind eye to everything you do....and, mirabile dictu, nothing happens.

Quoting mvantony: Of course you would.

Of course you would say that, wouldn't you?

"...They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there....
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J.H. Blair. Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?..." As to Gaza now, neutrality is bullshit, the posture of fair and high mindedness. As to Gaza now, neutrality elides Israel responding to a civilian-targeted war on its sovereignty, and elides Israel trying to proceed, in a war, carefully against incredibly densely populated Gazans—women, children, the devout, the elderly, the infirm, the wretched of the Earth—murderously used by Hamas as human shields—only 1,000 or so dead, all in, Hamas fighters and, tragically, civilians, over a three week campaign, all on Hamas. If Gaza is a state or a quasi state, then its government, Hamas, declared war on Israel. States, normally not committed to the non-existence of their neighbors, just as normally don't rocket their neighbors’ civilians, and, if they do, can expect force as reprisal. One solution is for Hamas not to so rocket, but, rather join with Fatah to work to improve folks’ lives, renounce violence, renouce the genocide in tis Charter, recognize Israel, commit itself to the promise of peaceful resolution by way of a two state solution, negotiate in good faith, renounce theocracy, separate Mosque from state, respect the equal rights of women, embrace the

Franco, I agree with you. Of course, all of those terrible things are taking place in Gaza. I meant my 'hyopothetical' sarcastically. Our point is that any kind of exceptionalism is, ethically speaking, fraught with danger. If I am right that Frum's and The Democrats' support of Israel's actions requires an assumption of Israeli exceptionalism, then their indifference to the barbarism of the occupation makes sense. On what ground can they criticize anything that Israel does, given that the Israeli state and its citizens are, to put it clumsily, "of higher value?" At best, they can appeal to pragmatic concerns, i.e., these actions will strengthen Hamas, will turn world opinion against Israel, will make a peace settlement impossible. These concerns are certainly real, but in appealing to them exclusively, we degrade our moral sensibilities.

Quoting judex: An enlightening but ultimately frustrating dialogue because of a largely unaddressed split in assumptions: For Frum, Israeli security must be considered more important than the freedom and well-being of any Palestinian state.

You hit the nail on the head. Until US Middle East Policy rejects this racist assumption- yes, I said it-it can never be an honest and fair mediator.

So there seem to be two liberal points of view: 1. The standard liberal view: I've watched Schindler's List and The Pianist. Jews are a peaceful people and always getting the short end of the stick and we need to support them.
2. The Rachel Corrie sympathizers: If only you blind Americans knew what was really going on with the atrocities that we are participating in... Let me make a case for the other side. I dare anyone to state that American exceptionalism and Wilsonianism, on the whole, has done more harm than good. As a Korean American, I can't tell you how thankful I am for America's participation in the Korean War. Americans may not have participated for the sake of saving a bunch of gooks, but it doesn't make their participation any less good. The problem is that the millions of people like me who have benefitted from American meddling don't have mass rallies of appreciation. So yes, I support Israel and Israel exceptionalism not because I believe Jews are inherently good. Rather, the debate is over with regard to which types of governments are good. This liberal idea of supporting human rights as

Quoting Baltimoron: I just couldn't watch this any further after Frum quibbled over "terrorists" and "terrorist organizations". I'll try later. But, for the future, Atallah v Kagan?

I feel you on this one. Restricting terrorism to non-state actors sounds theoretically precise but is nothing but a propaganda move. The 'power to define' is arguably the most important part of the Palestinian struggle for statehood.

Quoting sugarkang: So yes, I support Israel and Israel exceptionalism not because I believe Jews are inherently good. Rather, the debate is over with regard to which types of governments are good. This liberal idea of supporting human rights as well as national sovereignty is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways!

Do you think a government which lacks both a constitution and full equality under the law for all religious and ethnic groups is a good, liberal government?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Do you think a government which lacks both a constitution and full equality under the law for all religious and ethnic groups is a good, liberal government?

Of course not. But that's not the relevant question for me. I'm not concerned with pointing out the bad moral actor. I'm concerned with erecting a system of government that leans towards certain ideals of freedom and western values even at the consequence of some blood on our hands. Your form of logic would require Americans to give back all of their land back to the Indians. I'm sorry, but there is such a thing called war and conquest and he who prevails gets the marbles.

Quoting sugarkang: Of course not. But that's not the relevant question for me. I'm not concerned with pointing out the bad moral actor. I'm concerned with erecting a system of government that leans towards certain ideals of freedom and western values even at the consequence of some blood on our hands.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In one breath you suggest injustice doesn't matter yet in another breath you favor western liberal ideas. Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Quoting grits-n-gravy: You appear to be contradicting yourself. In one breath you suggest injustice doesn't matter yet in another breath you favor western liberal ideas. Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Yes, I contradicted myself if you assess my position in a vacuum. Let me try to explain. America itself has engaged in hypocrisy. Despite having a Constitution that protects its citizens from the tyranny of the majority, we suspended habeas corpus during the civil war, we enslaved millions of Africans, we put Japanese Americans in internment camps, we denied women certain rights and treated them like chattel. But look where we are now. We have elected a black president, we have spread democracy around the world, we have brought prosperity to Japan, Korea, and China. Fundamentalist religions are not conducive to democracy. Liberals are dangerously close to legitimizing Hamas. They espouse a false Rousseauan ideal that people are good and that all people want peace. That somehow if we just handle things correctly, peace will happen. People are not always motivated by peace. There's a segment of the Korean population that would nuke Japan off the Earth if given the chance. Sometimes war is the

Quoting sugarkang: ......Let me put this another way. Would you personally rather live under Hamas rule or Israeli rule? If Hamas/Israel military power were reversed, do you think Israel would still exist?

As a fellow Korean American I SO want to agree with you and be supportive sugerkang, and especially because it's rare to see Koreans truly engaging in U.S. political discourse, but I disagree strongly with the entirety of this post, especially the last sentence. I think the question is simplistic, does not take into account history and context, and is false. That is, whatever answer you choose has very little, if any relevance on what should be the U.S. policy in the middle east. These kinds of "what would you choose" types of questions are dead end and are just not that useful in my opinion. I personally would rather live under a socialist system much like the Scandinavian countries, and if there was an election tomorrow to choose that option or keeping our current over the top capitalist system, I would vote for the former in a heartbeat. But I am not packing my bags to move to Norway anytime soon. I love the U.S. and I love being an American. And, I love

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: As a fellow Korean American I SO want to agree with you and be supportive sugerkang, and especially because it's rare to see Koreans truly engaging in U.S. political discourse, but I disagree strongly with the entirety of this post, especially the last sentence. I think the question is simplistic, does not take into account history and context, and is false. That is, whatever answer you choose has very little, if any relevance on what should be the U.S. policy in the middle east. These kinds of "what would you choose" types of questions are dead end and are just not that useful in my opinion. I personally would rather live under a socialist system much like the Scandinavian countries, and if there was an election tomorrow to choose that option or keeping our current over the top capitalist system, I would vote for the former in a heartbeat. But I am not packing my bags to move to Norway anytime soon. I love the U.S. and I love being an American. Similarly, someone once asked me if I was for, or against the torture of animals. Needless to say, I'm against, but of course then I would have to be against eating meat and medical

As a fellow Korean American I SO want to agree with you and be supportive sugerkang, and especially because it's rare to see Koreans truly engaging in U.S. political discourse,

My ethnicity should have no bearing on whether you agree with me or not. I'm not into this "team" thing that you espouse. I believe in only the human race. I only referenced the Korean War as an example of American intervention that produced a lot of good.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: The point being that making a preference choice does not automatically have an easy corresponding consequence, nor give a definitive answer or actionable item to an issue, especially one that is complex.

In your example, the choice is between two western systems, both liveable by western standards. That is not the choice I presented, and is thus a false analogy. Sometimes the choice is easy. You know damn well you wouldn't live under fundamentalist Muslim rule by choice.

And, yes, U.S. history is littered with injustices but we have ultimately come out on top. Well, this is certainly true. But what exactly is the point of that within the context of this discussion?

The point being that sometimes you need to break

Quoting AemJeff: I don't grasp is what exactly that is. Why, in your view, is evil perpetrated by I against P to be judged so much more harshly than its opposite? You argue in favor of practicalities, but draw what seem to be conclusions drawn from a strong sense of idealism; and it's not clear (to me at least) what those ideals are.

She seems like a pacifist to me. I like what Kagan said... "peace through power!" or something like that.

Hi AemJeff, I'll respond to your question later. I probably write better than the average person but am not a writer, so formulating my thoughts on paper for it to makes sense to others takes a while, and is kind of draining. Plus I've been sitting for a while now and need to loosen up. I need to limp around and have some wine. I'll get back later or tomorrow.

Definition is a skill in the legal profession, and, as some others noted on this Board, Frum indulges that expertise. There are few 'heads I cannot find some scintilla of worth. Frum has always annoyed me. But, as a matter of policy, there are "nicer", and more talented, interviewers for newbies to confront on this site. And, yes I didn't listen to most of this diavlog, but on the point: what about that horrible circumlocution, "state sponsor of terrorism"?

Firstly, I'm glad Lemon Sorbet and sugarkang are engaging an American audience in English. It inspires me to engage South Korean netizens in Korean. I get enough grist by engaging in English with students to keep me off-balance. Lemon Sorbet: Conservative Americans and vets will be grateful for your kind words about U.N. action in 1950. It's not heard enough in ROK. But, I agree with my South Korean students, that that is past -although Koreans can make 1950 seem like yesterday considering how often some invoke past events for current arguments. ROK is a middle-tier state now, with all that means for its place in the family of nations. Consider ROK for most of its post-Korean War history. By your reckoning, if I might argue, ROK was not a good place until Kim Young-sam's presidency. And, for at least half of the period before that, even DPRK was more economically advanced than ROK. I'm even willing to fault various American military missions - like the pre-'50 USAMGIK - with gross negligence and abetting of some really unsavory reactionaries. Truly, I do question the efficiency by which Lee Syng-man and Park Chung-hee forcibly developed ROK with billions of American and Japanese credits. The corruption alone, not to forget

Quoting Baltimoron: Shakespeare is keen on power politics, but I think you should give Rousseau another look. His skepticism about progress is on par with Shakespeare's, and his readings of Hobbes and Locke outdo modern academics. Too many university parasites never read all his work taken as a whole and ignore his letters, making Rousseau into a convenient straw man.

I admit that I'm no academic, and I do not know enough. However, the part about his philosophy that is weakest is also the portion that is subscribed to by emotional bleeding hearts everywhere. I feel it is always incumbent upon non Sarah Palin conservatives such as myself to point out that people are not inherently good.

Straw man! Rousseau never argued that humans were inherently good. He chided both Hobbes and Locke for arguing that humans in the state of nature meant anything for contemporary humans in society. Actually, in nature, according to Rousseau, men are indifferent to one another and only concerned about food, water, temporary shelter for sleeping, and procreation. Women are only marginally more concerned with their offspring in addition to the first three. Where the deliberate misconception comes is, that men would not have gone to war because there were no social organizations capable of supporting war, as opposed to Hobbes. Men did not maintain property, as opposed to what Locke argues, because they had no permanent needs. For Rousseau, the first man to claim property was like Adam, and the world changed irrevocably. Man can no longer regress to the state of nature, because his needs are created and supported by society. For Rousseau, there are no natural people on the earth by definition. All people, even savages, have some form of social interaction. But, Hobbes and Locke use the state of nature in their arguments as logical presuppositions for their social theorizing, something Rousseau condemned. For Rousseau, the state of nature

Quoting Baltimoron: Straw man!

Rousseau never argued that humans were inherently good.

Well, that's even better. You're defending the man. I'm attacking the idea. If we agree that it is dangerous to think that humans are inherently good, then whatever I think about Rousseau is irrelevant. BTW, I think you meant to attribute the props to me for appreciation of American participation in the Korean War. I disagree that the past is past. Ideology matters. Economic systems matter. And it thoroughly pisses me off that Koreans are so anti FTA when that shit benefits them mostly. Don't even get me started about the beef. As if Americans have an interest in sending poisoned beef. Ungrateful Korean nationals as well as Korean Americans just piss me off.

Quoting sugarkang: Fundamentalist religions are not conducive to democracy. Liberals are dangerously close to legitimizing Hamas. They espouse a false Rousseauan ideal that people are good and that all people want peace. That somehow if we just handle things correctly, peace will happen. People are not always motivated by peace.?

I would like to meet one of these curious, indeed absurd liberals. Could you name one prominent liberal who has come close to "legitimizing" Hamas? From the beginning of liberalism as a political ideal in the nineteenth century it has been adamantly opposed to the interference of religion in politics. Have you ever read Rousseau? He quite explicitly argues that war is the inevitable outcome of the organisation of mankind into sovereign states.

Quoting sugarkang: Sometimes war is the quickest way to peace. But I'm not advocating war here either. Just saying that in certain historical contexts, war is not only an inevitable consequence but the best course of action. If you can understand the moral argument for abortion, you should be able to understand this as well.?

I assume you believe that Israel and Hamas are at war. That, however, is impossible. Gaza isn't a state. The conflict between

Quoting Baltimoron: Straw man!

Rousseau, no matter what Kant tried to do, is proof that intelligence and morality do not go together.

That was a spirted and on the whole accurate defense of Rousseau, Baltimoron. Unfortunately, people will just go on repeating the same platitudes about Rousseau's thought till the end of time. Readers are rare. I beg to differ, though, with your parting shot as well as with the invidious comparison with Kant: Rousseau never claimed that he was virtuous (only "good"---in his special use of the word), and he certainly never thought that intelligence and morality go together. Nor did Kant, because Kant was Rousseau's greatest pupil.

Quoting judex: If I am right that Frum's and The Democrats' support of Israel's actions requires an assumption of Israeli exceptionalism, then their indifference to the barbarism of the occupation makes sense. On what ground can they criticize anything that Israel does, given that the Israeli state and its citizens are, to put it clumsily, "of higher value?" At best, they can appeal to pragmatic concerns, i.e., these actions will strengthen Hamas, will turn world opinion against Israel, will make a peace settlement impossible. These concerns are certainly real, but in appealing to them exclusively, we degrade our moral sensibilities.

I knew you were being sarcastic. I just wanted to flesh out the implications of your statement. Yes, you put your finger on the dilemma: the whole American political establishment, both democrat and republican, has lost its moral bearings because it has for too long given Israel every benefit of the doubt: no matter what Israel does, it must be right because Israel is morally or culturally or intellectually superior to the Palestinians and to the Arabs in general. True or false, this is an enormous irrelevancy.

Quoting Francoamerican: Could you name one prominent liberal who has come close to "legitimizing" Hamas?

No, I don't believe liberals directly support Hamas. The problem is the liberal assumption that the larger power is the bully, i.e., the Chomsky position of only criticizing US action. Liberals suffer from stockholm syndrome. I'm not saying that US isn't to be criticized. There is a liberal assumption that Hamas is some evil minority power that holds sway over 90% of the peaceful Palestinian population. Well, the Palestinian people elected Hamas into power. The Palestinian people all have a little Hamas in them. How do you know that the Palestinians you saw crying on TV weren't screaming "Death to Israel" only moments before?

I assume you believe that Israel and Hamas are at war. That, however, is impossible. Gaza isn't a state. The conflict between the people of Israel and the Palestinians is a civil war.

War or civil war, take your pick. I think Frum is right when he says war can change people's minds. United States civil war being his prime example. Can you imagine if the South had won?

Until Israel either exterminates all the Palestinians, or drives them into some other country, there can be no "solution" and

Quoting TwinSwords: Do you also agree, wholeheartedly, that Jews have some kind of exceptional "intellect and capacity to do good in the world?"

Quoting bjkeefe: That's not what Lemon said.

He said, "I have long admired the Jewish people for their intellect and capacity to do good in the world."

Quoting TwinSwords: He said, "I have long admired the Jewish people for their intellect and capacity to do good in the world."

She. And that quoted statement I agree with. Now, are you going to take me word by word through the rest of Lemon's paragraph? Or will you take a couple of deep breaths and be able to realize that I was agreeing wholeheartedly with the emotion it expressed as an organic whole? And maybe take a couple more, and realize that by my saying something complimentary about Jews, I am not implying something derogatory about anybody else? [Added] I'm not sure what your aim is here, Twin, but if you're attempting to sound like the mirror image of David Frum, you're succeeding magnificently.

Quoting bjkeefe: She.

Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: And that quoted statement I agree with.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a moment, but first can you tell me what is the difference between the quoted statement and the way I represented it? Is it the distinction between "the Jewish people" and "Jews?" Or the phrase "some kind of exceptional?" Or something else? RE the question about where I'm going with this, I'm wondering if you are merely talking about "the Jewish people" in some abstract sense, or individual Jews.

Quoting TwinSwords: I'll respond to the rest of your post in a moment, but first can you tell me what is the difference between the quoted statement and the way I represented it?

You added the modifier "exceptional."

RE the question about where I'm going with this, I'm wondering if you are merely talking about "the Jewish people" in some abstract sense, or individual Jews.

I am talking about the Jewish people as a group throughout history.

Quoting bjkeefe: You added the modifier "exceptional."

I don't think it's unreasonable to infer that someone who says, "I have long admired the Jewish people for their intellect and capacity to do good in the world" believes that there is something exceptional about Jewish intellect and capacity to do good in the world. But I will grant that this is an interpretation of what Lemon said, and that it's possible that Lemon meant she long admired the unexceptional intellect and capacity of 'the Jewish people' (as a group but not as individuals) to do good in the world.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am talking about the Jewish people as a group throughout history.

I would agree with the sentiment, too, if Lemon merely means something like "the experience of the Jewish people throughout history can teach the rest of us important lessons about hope, peace, human dignity and compassion." I'm less willing to agree that "the Jewish people" (as distinct from the experience of the Jewish people) have special characteristics (such as an innate "ability to do good" that other human populations lack), or a special ability to teach "the rest of us" about, e.g., compassion. As for intellect, I'm unclear on how

Quoting TwinSwords: [...]

Noted.

It seems that Atallah’s main point is try to figure out a way to get the two sides, the Israelis and Hamas out of the logic of the “death dance” (see Glenn Loury) in which each side believes that if they make life hellish enough of the other they will be able to secure their own interests. Frum seems to be saying that if Israel makes life hellish enough for people in Gaza they will abandon Hamas (which was strengthened by Israel and the US in the first place in order to weaken Fatah); but this is just the mirror image of Hamas’ strategy with regard to Israel. It returns us to the “death dance” between the two sides.

Quoting matthawk: It returns us to the “death dance” between the two sides.

It also return us to the assumption of American foreign policy that Jewish rights should trump Palestinian rights. Which is wrong, not to mention racist.

Quoting AemJeff: As I read through your various thoughtful contributions to this (epic) discussion, I'm struck by how much you argue for a nuanced view of the conflict, and by what seems to me to be the dissonance between that stated point of view and the conclusion you seem to have arrived at....

Here you go AemJeff: I think the Palestinian actions are understandable, but not justified. But honestly, I think the difference between the two in this situation is very thin. That is, I understand the desire for violence given their circumstance, and the nature of it and the duration gives so much cause that the understanding almost crosses over to justifiable. But, it's not justifiable. To say that something is justified implies that it is ok, that you can continue doing it from a moral standpoint. You must know that I would not think it ok for Palestinians to commit violence against the Israelis. I'm going to use an analogy here that I think best illustrates where I am on this. To me, the Palestinians are the violent kid who grew up poor, abused, neglected and uneducated, and knew there was absolutely no chance at anything. It's inevitable that he

Twin, I do not think Jews have something magical that that gives them special intellect. For one thing, if you've ever taken history of western civiliation you know that much of sciences and advancement in art and architecture were born out of the Muslim world. Further, there are examples of great thinking and advancement from various groups in Asia, Africa, South America, etc. I simply observed that Jews have disproportionately contributed to the intellectual development of the world and in particular the U.S. I find that they are a group that puts premium on intellectual thinking at a far greater degree than any other. Intellectualism is not the same thing as education, which is something many cultures emphasize, so yes, they stand out that way. Whether this love of intellectualism is cultural or genetic, I really don't know. Maybe Ruth was an intellectual.

Quoting sugarkang: My ethnicity should have no bearing on whether you agree with me or not. I'm not into this "team" thing that you espouse. I believe in only the human race. I only referenced the Korean War as an example of American intervention that produced a lot of good.

Whoa... sorry about that, my mistake. But fyi, I think you're over interpreting here. If our ethnicity had a bearing I would have tried to agree with you on something, anything, but as you know I don't. Rather, the comment was simply acknowledging that I have yet to meet any Korean American that is interested in U.S./World Politics to the degree that is BH audience (of course, that could just be because I've never really had a Korean friend, but even amongst my large extended family I've yet to encounter it), and just gladness upon seeing someone with whom you have something in common in an uncommon setting. I had the same reaction years ago upon meeting an American in the Paris office where my company sent me, so don't read into things that are not there sugerkang, but apologies for whatever offense was taken. oops, my download's complete. Gotta install new AutoCAD. Have

Thanks, Lemon. I'll start to respond by saying that I think your riff on understandable, but not justifiable, applies equally to both sides. Also the lack of honesty you highlighted regarding Israeli attitudes toward the Palestinians is at least as applicable to the Palestinians. Have you ever seen Hamas' propaganda for children? I don't doubt that in schools run by the extreme right-wing that Israeli children are being similarly indoctrinated - though I have no evidence in that regard. In fact, the only real differences I can see between the two sides, regarding the fight, is that the Israelis are better armed, and in a far better strategic situation; and Hamas' strategy includes the explicit targeting of civilians. On the whole, they're each guilty of doing horrible things inspired by hatred and fear of the other. What if, instead of the '67 war, the Arabs would have settled for an uneasy peace with Israel then? Now, forty years later, without the issue of the '67 borders; without the hatred generated by horrific acts of terrorism? It's possible to imagine that the Israelis, after two generations without having suffered a Palestinian attack directed at noncombatants, would be able to view the Palestinian people without anything

Quoting sugarkang: Yes, I contradicted myself if you assess my position in a vacuum. Let me try to explain. . . .

Based on your explanation, I'd have to conclude that you do think the ends justify the means. It was that attitude which initiated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the first place. By your logic, if we just exterminate as many people as possible who resist the Enlightenment project the world would be a better place, at least in the long run.

Ok, continuing: Sugarkang, from which source do you make the sweeping pronouncement that I or liberals make the argument that human beings are essentially good? It's not that I think otherwise as I vacillate on this, but perhaps a bigger question is – whatever the answer is to this burning question on the make-up of man-kind, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? The situation is thus: Palestinians feel they have been deeply wronged. This is universally acknowledged by the world and even unofficially by many Israelis and Jews, though I think most believe there were extenuating circumstances. Palestinians have gone from living their life normally to being driven to a ghetto of deplorable conditions and daily humiliations from the occupiers. This in turn has resulted in ultra violent resistance and loss of humanity for the Palestinians. Regardless of context, Israelis are being intolerably threatened on a daily basis and they in turn are taking very violent action. Both sides are intractable. Now, giving in to your belief that human beings are not inherently good, what does this philosophical acknowledgement have to do with resolving the above? Are you saying

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Based on your explanation, I'd have to conclude that you do think the ends justify the means. It was that attitude which initiated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the first place.

I already had this conversation with Francoamerican supra. I don't equate a hawkish foreign policy with being genocidal like most liberals. Sorry, we'll just have to disagree on this point.

By your logic, if we just exterminate as many people as possible who resist the Enlightenment project the world would be a better place, at least in the long run.

That might be my ideological persuasion, but not my justification for war. The rules of war have always been the same: if you're willing to fight, you better win. We Americans dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan that amounted to 200-300K deaths. Do you remember the anti-Japan sentiments of the 80s? People were expecting Japan to drop bombs at any time. And what if they did? It wouldn't have surprised anyone, considering what we did to them. But they didn't retaliate, and now we're best friends and we drive all their cars and eat sushi. Liberals are saying that it is understandable that Palestinians

Quoting sugarkang: Liberals are saying that it is understandable that Palestinians are hostile. Right, but it is also true that if Hamas gives up, there will be peace. Simple.

It's also true that if the Israelis pack up and move to Miami, there will be peace. I'm not sure this is a useful counterfactual.

Quoting AemJeff: It's also true that if the Israelis pack up and move to Miami, there will be peace.

True, but the difference being that my hypothetical has an actual chance of being reality. Israel has the nukes, US funding. Palestine has some dinky rockets and a handful of suicidal volunteers. Can we agree that Israel is not going anywhere? I'm not saying Palestine doesn't have grievances. It's not that I don't sympathize with Palestinians. But the situation is what it is, and only bloggingheads readers want peace.

Quoting sugarkang: True, but the difference being that my hypothetical has an actual chance of being reality.

Israel has the nukes, US funding. Palestine has some dinky rockets and a handful of suicidal volunteers. Can we agree that Israel is not going anywhere?

I'm not saying Palestine doesn't have grievances. It's not that I don't sympathize with Palestinians. But the situation is what it is, and only bloggingheads readers want peace.

I don't think so. The point I was making is that either event is, for all practical purposes, equally likely. There's no chance in any foreseeable future that the Palestinians are going to "give up." Even if Hamas decided to take that step, someone else would step up. And no reasonable expectation that they ought to.

Quoting AemJeff: I don't think so. The point I was making is that either event is, for all practical purposes, equally likely. There's no chance in any foreseeable future that the Palestinians are going to "give up." Even if Hamas decided to take that step, someone else would step up. And no reasonable expectation that they ought to.

Okay, well that's our point of disagreement then. Wars eventually end though and it's just a matter of time and pressure. People can't unwatch Schindler's List, or unknow the Holocaust, and AIPAC isn't going anywhere.

Quoting Baltimoron: Firstly, I'm glad Lemon Sorbet and sugarkang are engaging an American audience in English. It inspires me to engage South Korean netizens in Korean. I get enough grist by engaging in English with students to keep me off-balance.

So that's how you spell yeoboseyo! (fyi, it's a greeting) Hey Baltimoron, (I'm sorry, but your alias cracks me up, even more so when I write it) We are Americans engaging on Bloggingheads, what other language would we use??? I guess I could dust off my French or Korean but both are at a 3rd grade level so I don't know if I could pull off a discussion here. And yes, you incorrectly attributed me on a comment about American contribution in Korea, but I do agree with the sentiment.

Yes, I know it's a greeting. Well, you must be the least insular gyopo I've met in America.

Asad Abukhalil posted the following on his blog which underscores the fact that the way terrorism is defined is itself a political move.

This did not get any mention in the US press. The US government has decided to declare the reconstruction project of the southern suburbs of Beirut (known as Wa`d), as a terrorist organization. Do you know what that means? The US does not want people to donate money for the reconstruction of the southern suburbs after its destruction by US-made (and granted) bombs in the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. The US claims that the project is tied to Hizbullah, which it is, but what does that mean? The concrete and wood and cement become terrorist tools here? Is the US worried that the buildings may be used to threaten Israel? And how far will this go and when will it end? Terrorist hospitals and terrorist construction projects and terrorist drinking fountains and terrorist welfare organizations. Oh, and Israel just introduced the notion of terrorist beds: that explains why it killed so many children in Gaza. You see, they were sleeping in terrorist beds.
Posted by As'ad at 7:25 PM

Angryarab

Quoting sugarkang: No, I don't believe liberals directly support Hamas. The problem is the liberal assumption that the larger power is the bully, i.e., the Chomsky position of only criticizing US action. Liberals suffer from stockholm syndrome. I'm not saying that US isn't to be criticized..

Chomsky backs up his critique of US foreign policy with facts, and in his critique of US/Israel relations he has seldom said anything that hasn't already been said by Israeli peace activists. (See my reply to Judex above). That Israel has been a bully over the years seems to me obvious---if you look at the historical record, instead of dwelling on the present. I don't think American liberals suffer from the Stockholm syndrome (=sympathy with captors in a hostage situation). They suffer, as neoconservatives used to say of themselves, from being "mugged by reality." They once believed that Zionism was a noble project....then they discovered that it was just another pseudo-religious (=nationalistic) land grab. They believed in justice for all....then they discovered that justice for all just means justice for all Israelis.

Quoting sugarkang: There is a liberal assumption that Hamas is some evil minority power that holds sway over 90% of the

Quoting Francoamerican: They once believed that Zionism was a noble project....then they discovered that it was just another pseudo-religious (=nationalistic) land grab. They believed in justice for all....then they discovered that justice for all just means justice for all Israelis.

I will concede that this goes on. Again, which is why I said that the US has its faults. It doesn't make my point less salient. Ultimately, I don't support Israel because of some romantic belief that they are a beautiful people. I am suspicious of all power like a true conservative should be. I don't support Israel so much as I despise religious fundamentalism. Hamas raises children like Michael Vick raises pitbulls. Is it imperialist to advocate wiping them (Hamas, not Palestinians in general) out? Maybe, but you deserve an ass kicking when you threaten genocide.

True, I have no idea what the Palestinians really feel. A combination of rage and despair, I imagine, just like the leaders of Hamas.

I've mentioned before that Palestinians are justifiably angry. Being angry isn't simultaneously a license to kill either.

Of course not. As for war changing people's minds.... I wonder how many southern minds were actually changed by the Civil War. It is true that Southeners had to change their ways. But

Amjad Atallah paints a hopeful picture with his prescriptions - but, as usual, the multiplicity of conflicts far outstrip solutions. And as time accelerates, so does the complexity. A simple thought - if the Arab street is only willing to be outraged by the violence, but not moved sufficiently to play a constructive role benefiting the Palestinians, why would anyone be impressed by a more balanced approach by the Western powers? David Frum hints that such a viewpoint is as naive as believing the road to peace runs through Bagdad. It might have worked back when in the time of Nixon and Kissinger - but, events have moved us all far beyond the possibility of generating goodwill in this way. I am afraid only some overarching event, eclipsing this conflct, will be the only way to provide new opportunities to achieve lasting peace.

Quoting sugarkang: I don't support Israel so much as I despise religious fundamentalism.

Your objections to religious fundamentalism would have more credibility if it were accompanied by equal objections to racial/ethnic fundamentalisms, which is what the founding of the State of Israel represents. If you can't see that the former is a reaction to the latter then your analysis of the conflict lacks important context and moral substance.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Your objections to religious fundamentalism would have more credibility if it were accompanied by equal objections to racial/ethnic fundamentalisms

I suppose that's true logically. If I thought more like you, you would give me more credibility.

Quoting Baltimoron: Yes, I know it's a greeting. Well, you must be the least insular gyopo I've met in America.

I had to look up that word, but yes, you're probably right. First by circumstance, then later by too wide a gulf culturally. Of course I know you know what it means. It was for benefit of those who don't.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Your objections to religious fundamentalism would have more credibility if it were accompanied by equal objections to racial/ethnic fundamentalisms, which is what the founding of the State of Israel represents. If you can't see that the former is a reaction to the latter then your analysis of the conflict lacks important context and moral substance.

Don't even make the effort grits. Clearly not worth it.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Don't even make the effort grits. Clearly not worth it.

I guess I'm the eternal optimist, Lemon. :-)

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I guess I'm the eternal optimist, Lemon. :-)

(laughing) Yeah, me too.

Well, I'm glad at least Obama is a realist.
Sometimes you have to make the bad choice over the worse choice.

Quoting AemJeff: The victims are also spread between the sides. - And, while I think it's obvious that the people who have suffered the worst are Palestinian civilians, it's neither fair nor accurate to say that Israelis haven't suffered. Nor is it fair to simply point at the Israelis and "You have done this. You are responsible." Nobody could be solely responsible for an enormity like this conflict. And I, personally, hate to see the Left get caught up in a narrative that, while built on a commendable sense of empathy, actually, in my view, magnifies an already grotesque edifice of injustice.

I suppose this sums up my feelings about all of this pretty well. By siding with Israel, I've been attacked as if I were a Zionist. What's funny is that I was one of those pesky Ron Paul supporters who wanted an isolationist foreign policy. Not because I thought we were doing more harm than good, but because the world perceived us as doing more harm than good. Withdraw all our military power and see if the world doesn't come crying back to us. Makes me feel like Clint in Gran Torino.

I found Frum less despicable than I normally do in reading his writing is online diary. He certainly was outclassed and outmatched. Amjad was extremely well-versed in the issue and the realities of this situation. His pragmatic and principled approach was a very refreshing departure from the ideology that usually pervades this issue and causes gridlock and guarantees continued suffering. Take a look when Frum looks around. I am pretty sure the shelves behind him are stocked with the entirety of the surplus copies of the hardcover versions of the right man and the end of evil.